Bitcoin has long been a target of criticism for its energy consumption. In November, Dow Jones sharply criticized Harvard University for allocating part of its endowment fund to bitcoin, calling it “a fake currency and a money-laundering tool that is also an environmental disaster.”

In July, Bloomberg argued that Bitcoin “consumes electricity meant for the world’s poor.” Similar claims regularly surface in debates around ESG and sustainability.

According to ESG researcher and analyst Daniel Batten, however, nine of the most common claims about Bitcoin’s energy use are inconsistent with available data and peer-reviewed research.

“Every new and disruptive technology is accompanied by claims rooted in misunderstanding, lack of data, and fear of the unknown,” Batten says.

Myth No. 1: Bitcoin’s energy use depends on transaction volume

One of the most widespread claims is that Bitcoin consumes massive amounts of energy, water, and generates electronic waste “per transaction.” According to Batten, this framing is fundamentally flawed.

He points to four peer-reviewed studies showing that Bitcoin’s resource consumption is largely independent of transaction volume. The same conclusion is supported by the 2025 Digital Mining Industry Report from the University of Cambridge.

“In other words, transaction volume can increase without a corresponding rise in energy consumption,” Batten explains.

Myth No. 2: Bitcoin destabilizes power grids

Another frequent argument claims that Bitcoin mining threatens the stability of electrical grids. Data, however, suggest the opposite.

Mining acts as a highly flexible energy consumer and can help stabilize grids, particularly those with a high share of renewable energy. Texas is often cited as a real-world example, where miners can rapidly curtail consumption during peak demand and absorb excess energy when supply exceeds demand.

Myth No. 3: Bitcoin mining drives up electricity prices

According to Batten, there is no empirical data or peer-reviewed research showing that retail electricity prices rise because of Bitcoin mining.

In some cases, mining operations have helped stabilize or even reduce prices by improving utilization rates of power plants and monetizing excess generation that would otherwise go unused.

Myth No. 4: Comparing Bitcoin to entire countries makes sense

Media outlets frequently compare Bitcoin’s energy consumption to that of entire nations. Morningstar, for example, stated that “Bitcoin’s global computing network consumes more energy than Thailand or Poland.”

Batten argues that this comparison is misleading. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes that absolute energy consumption is less important than how energy is produced and used — particularly the transition toward cleaner energy sources.

Myth No. 5: Bitcoin has an extremely high carbon footprint

Claims about Bitcoin’s “extreme carbon footprint” are also questioned. According to Batten, mining produces no direct emissions (scope 1), and its environmental impact comes solely from indirect emissions related to electricity generation (scope 2).

This distinction significantly changes how Bitcoin’s environmental impact should be assessed, especially when regional energy mixes are taken into account.

Myth No. 6: Proof-of-stake is automatically greener

A common comparison contrasts Bitcoin with Ethereum after its transition to proof-of-stake. However, Batten argues that claims of proof-of-stake’s environmental superiority often “confuse energy consumption with environmental harm.”

He notes that proof-of-work offers environmental benefits that proof-of-stake does not, including the ability to reduce methane emissions, stabilize power grids, support renewable energy development, and monetize otherwise wasted or curtailed renewable power.

Myth No. 7: Alternatives to methane mining are easily scalable

While landfill gas or flared methane could theoretically be used for other purposes, Batten notes that such alternatives have repeatedly proven economically unviable at scale.

As a result, Bitcoin mining remains one of the few practical methods to capture and monetize these emissions in real-world conditions.

Myth No. 8: Bitcoin takes renewable energy away from others

Another popular claim suggests that Bitcoin mining diverts renewable energy from households and businesses. Data again point in the opposite direction.

Batten highlights the Gridless project in Africa, where Bitcoin mining has helped provide access to renewable electricity for approximately 28,000 people who previously lacked reliable power infrastructure.

Myth No. 9: Bitcoin wastes energy

The final myth argues that Bitcoin mining simply wastes energy. Peer-reviewed studies by Moghimi et al. and Lai and You suggest otherwise.

Their research shows that mining significantly reduces renewable energy curtailment and improves the economics of microgrids. In some cases, solar and wind utilization rates exceeded 90 percent.

The energy debate around Bitcoin is far from over

Some environmental researchers continue to point out that indirect emissions and opportunity costs remain difficult to measure. Still, Batten’s analysis suggests that the simplified narrative of Bitcoin as an environmental villain does not align with available evidence.

The debate over the energy impact of cryptocurrencies is unlikely to end anytime soon. According to ESG experts, however, it should rely less on emotion and more on empirical data.

Sources:

https://x.com/dsbatten/status/2007466463062270193

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/2025111880/harvards-massive-bitcoin-bet-is-an-environmental-disgrace

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-07-30/bitcoin-devours-the-electricity-meant-for-the-world-s-poor